Scientifically speaking, in layman's terms what is the difference between a law and a theory?

Question

I frequently visit the Religion and Spirtuality section where half of the people think they are the reincarnation of Einstein and know it all. There are frequent arguments over the "theory" of evolution. Some say that it is just a theory which to them means it has not been proven, as opposed to the "law" of gravity. Others say that the term theory does not mean that it has not been proven and that gravity is also a theory. I'm confused. Can someone clarify? Thanks

Answer 1

Gravity IS still only a theory. Just because something is a theory, don't completely discount it. It means that it has been validated time and time again, but hasn't been proven in 100% of all cases. Even if it's 99.99% correct, but does not apply/breaks down in ONE instance, it can't be a law. Evolution theory is still in effect today and can be monitored real-time in certain species. It doesn't have to be radical, drastic changes, just minute physiological or genetic differences from one generation of species to the next.

Answer 2

Everyone is a bit loose with "laws" these days.. however, there is such a thing as the scientific method that is useful in these arguements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

evolution, for example can be explained by the wieght of evidence in support of it, but you cant definitvly prove evolution even with the overwhelming evidence. Those that hold to thier own theories of the origin of creation dont use the scientific method, or twist it just a bit to make it less rigourous.  Newton had his laws, (IE gravity) but his laws have been supplanted by hypotheses, and eventually theory.